- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:38:07 +0000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g. >> "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better. > > If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change > @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ? I think "descriptionids" would have been better, but I suspect UAs have to implement "aria-describedby" for compatibility with existing content. > I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern. I'd welcome a break from the existing pattern of naming things confusingly. I don't think minting new names for existing features is prerequisite for choosing better names for new features. > Also, the name is probably not the only reason why @longdesc so often has had invalid content: I didn't say it was. I think we should take especial effort to avoid contributing factors to @longdesc's poisoning, whether those factors were minor or major. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:38:56 UTC